MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

depreciation against the same. Issue No.2 : non-examination by the AO of the expenses claimed by the assessee 25. Taking up the next issue raised by the Ld. Pr.CIT, the same relates to non-examination by the AO of the claim of expenses by the assessee particularly, as per the Ld.Pr.CIT, in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee

SHRI MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON,BATHINDA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.300/Asr/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mandeep Singh Dhillon Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax #16310, Street No. 13/5 Dhillon Bathinda (Punjab). Colony, Barnala Bye Pass, Bathinda.

260/- Perusal of the above shows that there is no business income at all. However, as per the trading account the opening stock of bardana has been shown at Rs.10,85,233/- and sales thereof at Rs. 2,48,700/- and claimed loss of Rs. 8,36,533/-. The detail of sales or opening stock and also explanation about loss